California proposes an Anti-anti-circumcision bill

by Tally on July 9, 2011

I am speechless. At least I can still write, though. I just found out that the state of California is proposing to outlaw any local effort to restrict male circumcision. California State Bill Number AB 768, amended, was introduced by Assembly Member Gatto.

Assemblyman Gatto is seeking to reform California's initiative process.[1] California allows members of the public to file ballot measures through the initiative process. Although subject to abuse by monied interests, the California initiative process allows the public to participate in governing themselves.[2]

Along with Assemblyman Gatto's initiative reform, he also seems to be targetting one initiative in particular, the San Francisco Male Infant Circumcision Ban that is coming up for a vote in November.

The proposed California State Bill AB 768, as amended, is reproduced below [3]:

SECTION 1. Part 10 (commencing with Section 125850) is added to Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code , to read:

PART 10. MALE CIRCUMCISION

125850. (a) The Legislature finds and declares as follows:

(1) Male circumcision has a wide array of health and affiliative benefits.

(2) This section clarifies and augments existing law.

(b) No local statute, ordinance, or regulation, or administrative action implementing a local statute, ordinance, or regulation shall prohibit or restrict the practice of male circumcision, or the exercise of parental authority with respect to the same.

SEC. 2. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:

In order to clarify the state's authority with respect to the regulation of the practice of male circumcision at the earliest possible time, it is necessary for this act to take effect immediately.

The bill was originally written to amend the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Low Carbon Fuel Standard.[4] On July 7, 2011, Assembly Member Gatto rewrote the bill to specifically pevent any local government from trying to restrict male circumcision, such as currently being proposed in San Francisco.[3]

The proposed bill AB 768 poses several troubling issues.

Male Infant Circumcision has Risks and Complications

Bill AB 768 includes the statement: "The Legislature finds and declares as follows: (1) Male circumcision has a wide array of health and affiliative benefits." I assume that Assembly Member Gatto plans on holding public fact finding investigations to support such a claim. I am sure that many would volunteer to offer lots of evidence showing that the male circumcision for infants has few, if any, medical benefits.

The declaration that Assemblyman Gatto seeks to make is not supported by medical professionals. Worldwide, no organization of medical professionals currently endorses non-therapeutic male infant circumcision. For example, recently the South African Medical Association's Human Rights, Law & Ethics Committee stated that it was unethical and illegal to perform circumcision on infant boys.[5] Further, the Committee expressed serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that male infant circumcision prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information.

First Amendment: Separation of Church and State

Another troubling aspect of the proposed bill is that AB 768 likely runs afoul of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.[6] The first part of the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That means no law can show a preference for or favor a particular religion.

California has an approximately 22% male infant circumcision rate.[7] Also, the current percentage of the California population that is Jewish is approximately 2.9%.[8] Considering that most Jews circumcise their infant boys, a significant proportion of all male infant circumcisions are performed for religious reasons. A very strong argument can be made that the proposed Bill AB 768 unconstitutionaly favors a specific religious practice.

Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection

The first section of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[9]

California has a law making female genital mutilatin a felony. "'Female genital mutilation' means the excision or infibulation of the labia majora, labia minora, clitoris, or vulva, performed for nonmedical purposes."[10] The US federal government has a Female Genital Mutilation Act that protects females from circumcision, excision, or infibulation of "the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris."[11] Females are protected from circumcision or other genital cutting at both the State and Federal level. The proposed California Bill seeks to treat males differently than females. Why is it that the genitals of girls are protected, but boys can have their genitals freely cut?

Parents have Limits on what they can do to their children

Also troubling is that Bill AB768 seeks to create a parental right to cut the genitalia of their child. The rights of parents are not absolute. Bill AB 768 seeks to establish by law a parental right for male circumcision. That Assemblyman Gatto believes that parents can have part of their child's penis cut off flies in the face of California's restriction on parents tattooing their children.[12] I think cutting off part of a male's penis is much worse than getting a tattoo.

Learn More:

To learn more about California Bill AB 768, including its current status, visit the California State Legislature page. In the Bill Search block on the right side of the page, search for bill number "AB 768" or for keyword "circumcision." You will end up with a page of links showing the current Bill status, the Bill's history, how the Bill has been amended, the Bill's committee analysis, and who has voted on the Bill.

Comments

Uh, not to burst your bubble, but it's "speechless." And uh, yeah. This bill is seeking to curtail the democratic process, nevermind the favoritism for Judaism. The ban should be allowed to play out, and the people should vote it down. What good is a voting system if you can't even vote? And Gatto needs to show us how a parent is entitled to elective, cosmetic, non-medical surgeries on their normal, healthy children, and why doctors are even obliged to perform it.

Those people that suffer abuse are prone to want to see it happen on others. Since people who have been circumcised are the ones that usually want to see it kept up, they're trying to rationalize the violation that happened to them when they were younger and make sure that others suffer the same fate as them.

"No local statute, ordinance, or regulation, or administrative action implementing a local statute, ordinance, or regulation shall prohibit or restrict the practice of male circumcision, or the exercise of parental authority with respect to the same."

I've always wanted to have a group of fundamentalists from my church come around to my house and help me circumcise my teenage son with a chainsaw, and now I will be able to, free from the interference of do-gooding child protection workers. America; the land of the free!

A similar law to the religious Coven-ant law is the religious Blasphemy law. It allows parents to excise their children's lives if they embarrass their religious beliefs.

(1) Infant male circumcision has a potential array of health benefits for the affiliative uneducated and an array of known short term and long term risks and harms for its victims. This would be a more honest statement than what the proponents of infant male prepuce excisionists claim.

It is an uphill battle against people who are unwilling to think logically, but with the decrease in percentage of neonatal circumcision in California, there should be a sufficient number of parents who would vote for an anti-circumcision bill. The problem is to convince them to vote. I am not at all familiar with the California legal system, but now that enough signatures have been collected to bring it to a popular vote, can the language of the proposed bill be modified?

No matter what the outcome in San Francisco turns out to be, the subject of infant circumcision is getting out in the open. Perhaps, the intactivist movement should now concentrate on Colorado, where the state legislature stopped Medicaid funding for circumcision. Although not considered as important as the West Coast, Colorado is also a trend-setting state, with a large number of pragmatic voters.

Wouldn't the language of "the exercise of parental authority with respect to the same" put this in direct conflict with federal law against female genital cutting when the cutting causes equal or less damage than a male circumcision?

South African Medical Association's Human Rights, Law & Ethics Committee stated that it was unethical and illegal to perform circumcision on infant boys. The Committee expressed serious concern not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. http://tinyurl.com/3rhhpx8

"(1) Male circumcision has a wide array of health and affiliative benefits."

I recoil in horror at the prospect of a state legislature asserting that there are health benefits. And pray tell, what is an "affiliative benefit"?? And how do these supposed benefits go down the tubes if the operation is delayed until after the 18th birthday? Especially given that it is illegal for a boy to have sex until he is at least 16.

The only way to explain why this law is being proposed in California, despite its current ~20% circ rate, is that Gatto is not aware of current maternity ward practice, and is a protege of Congressman Brad Sherman.

Who is this guy?

Restoring Tally is just an ordinary guy who had to confront his prostate and circumcision problems. This site chronicles his journey in dealing with these issues. He has had prostate surgery and he is restoring his foreskin.